The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Dbacksfan12 on June 05, 2006, 01:19:09 AM
-
For the last category, she gave the clue "Hall of Fame Books".
Shouldn't that have been buzzed for being a prepositional phrase?
Also..regarding the contestants comment "I thought we were at commercial"...were Bob Stewart shows edited in post (including the sound effects?)
-
That would be the 'deck of cards' rule... you can use propositions if omitting them would lead to an awkward phrase.
-
For the last category, she gave the clue "Hall of Fame Books".
Shouldn't that have been buzzed for being a prepositional phrase?
No.
The preposition "of" proved to be perfectly acceptable in the Winner's Circle round.
Now had she said "Books IN the Hall of Fame," I'm certain that would have been buzzed as it was a prepositional description of "where."
In summation, I'd say the only safe preposition in the WC round is "of."
(EDIT) If I remember correctly, I believe that even the preposition "of" WAS deemed unnacceptable in the 2002-04 revival. Of course, the judging was ridiculously overly stringent on the Osmond version, but that's just my two cents.
--Jamie
-
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'120380\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 12:19 AM\']
For the last category, she gave the clue "Hall of Fame Books".
Shouldn't that have been buzzed for being a prepositional phrase?[/quote]
Generally, the rule was that you couldn't follow a noun with a prepositional phrase because that was "describing," but you could use an adjective before the noun because that was part of the clue, and you could use a prepositional phrase that was part of an established thing: the Queen of hearts, the Hall of Fame.
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Fiono Coyne\' post=\'120382\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 10:22 PM\']
Of course, the judging was ridiculously overly stringent on the Osmond version, but that's just my two cents.
[/quote]
What huh? "Friggin' random", yes. I would NOT use the word "stringent."
And in most cases on the Clark show, the prepositional phrase rule only kicked in if the phrase in question was modifying the list item. "Hall of Fame" is not a prepositional phrase in and of itself, and was properly placed (as Jimmy said, "books in the Hall of Fame" would totally be a buzzer), so it's a perfectly legitimate clue.
-
What huh? "Friggin' random", yes. I would NOT use the word "stringent."
Alright fine, it was randomly stringent.
I'm currently looking at a Winner's Circle round right now from the Osmond version which exemplifies the reasons for my disdain towards their judging:
Subject: BINGO NUMBERS
Clues: G-46, B-37
Contestant responses: "Bingo, Bingo pieces, things in Bingo, positions in bingo, bingo cards"
They didn't accept any of those answers because she didn't say the word "numbers." Maybe I've just been spoiled way too much by the Clark version and have no doubt that her answers would've been accepted then.
I remember there being a number of other examples, but I'm not in the mood to go through my tapes to find them. In fact , one day I will make a compilation of examples of some ridiculous judging on the Osmond version for all to see.
--Jamie
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Fiono Coyne\' post=\'120389\' date=\'Jun 4 2006, 11:15 PM\']
I'm currently looking at a Winner's Circle round right now from the Osmond version which exemplifies the reasons for my disdain towards their judging:
Subject: BINGO NUMBERS
Clues: G-46, B-37
Contestant responses: "Bingo, Bingo pieces, things in Bingo, positions in bingo, bingo cards"
They didn't accept any of those answers because she didn't say the word "numbers." Maybe I've just been spoiled way too much by the Clark version and have no doubt that her answers would've been accepted then.
[/quote]Why should they accept "Bingo things" if "Bingo Numbers" is the subject? If you need to say all parts of the phrase "Bingo" is not sufficient to be right. "$100,000 Pyramid" would have avoided the issue entirely by having the subject as "Things in Bingo," but in this case the judges were right.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'120400\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 09:47 AM\']
Why should they accept "Bingo things" if "Bingo Numbers" is the subject? If you need to say all parts of the phrase "Bingo" is not sufficient to be right. "$100,000 Pyramid" would have avoided the issue entirely by having the subject as "Things in Bingo," but in this case the judges were right.
[/quote]
Right after the show debuted, I remember there was a debate on the old board. The category was "Disco Songs" and some of the posters wondered why "Disco Music" wasn't accepted.
I believe the explanation was that "Village People" could classify as Disco Music, but "Y.M.C.A." or "In the Navy" are Disco Songs. If anything, the category was just a little TOO specific. "Disco Music" or "Things Associated with Disco" might've been better.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'120400\' date=\'Jun 5 2006, 06:47 AM\']
Why should they accept "Bingo things" if "Bingo Numbers" is the subject? If you need to say all parts of the phrase "Bingo" is not sufficient to be right. "$100,000 Pyramid" would have avoided the issue entirely by having the subject as "Things in Bingo," but in this case the judges were right.
[/quote]
They might have been right, but Jimmy is too in that those categories (the ones that had multiple keywords; we also had a long discussion as to why THINGS ON A CAVE WALL was a sham for a similar reason back in the day) were bad as well.
So I think the middle ground we can come to is that while the judging was insanely lenient with regard to the clues the giver could give, the directions they were given with regard to how to judge these badly-written categories were overly strict as well.
In other words, I don't blame the judges here, I blame whatever idiot vetted those categories for air.
-
To answer the other question, like most old-school producers, Stewart only entered the editing room when he needed to. In his case, absolutely, positively, no choice available needed to.
-
They didn't accept any of those answers because she didn't say the word "numbers." Maybe I've just been spoiled way too much by the Clark version and have no doubt that her answers would've been accepted then.
They wouldn't have written "Bingo Numbers" as a category. They would've gone with the single-keyword, more general "Things in Bingo" or "Things at a Bingo Game". The judges either have to have been picky about the double keywords and blame the writers, or subvert the writers and just take the most important key word. I will remind you, however, that these are the same judges who would force you to say "Things at a bingo game" to get credit where "bingo" would have been sufficient before.
Of course, when you go from Things That Are Enshrined to Things Regis' Coffee Cup Would Say, it seems silly to continue to lump any sort of legitimacy on the proceedings.
-
1) Rooms in the White House. Frickin' frackin' rooms in the White House.
2) The only good thing about the strict judging on Osmond Pyramid was when it came to "Why You ____" and "Things ____ Would Say". Dear contestant, what possesses you to think that "because your nose tickles" is a "Thing A Sneeze Would Say"? I am still laughing at you, over two years later.
-
[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'120501\' date=\'Jun 6 2006, 03:29 AM\']
1) Rooms in the White House. Frickin' frackin' rooms in the White House.
2) The only good thing about the strict judging on Osmond Pyramid was when it came to "Why You ____" and "Things ____ Would Say". Dear contestant, what possesses you to think that "because your nose tickles" is a "Thing A Sneeze Would Say"? I am still laughing at you, over two years later.
[/quote]
A few weeks ago, I had a memory lapse as to why this version was so bad, and was wondering if I should've given it another chance. Now that I remembered such insipid categories as those, I realize, no, I shouldn't have.
-
Just to clarify, my item #2 was made up. And the actual category there would be reasonable--WHY YOU SNEEZE--just not the hypothetical guess of the contestant.